The only surprise is that it doesn't happen more often.

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

***

Quote

On the average about 120 children a year are killed accidentally by guns. One every three days. The only reason this one made the news is that it was an especially sad story.

"From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents."

120 < 3,533

Every year more than 500 kids die in bike accidents.
http://ymiclassroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GetInGear.pdf

120 < 500

.

Didn't realize we had a contest in the USA to see which method killed the most kids.

When you espouse banning something or removing a Constitutionally protected right "to save lives". It is important to make sure you are working off of data and not emotions.

[DaVinci 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

You are taught to aim center mass and stop only when the threat is stopped

Which is the lawyer version of: Keep pulling the trigger until you are very sure he won't be getting up.

Nope. It is the lawyer version of saying do what you have to do to make sure the guy trying to kill you does not kill you.

[billvon 2,463]

>No, but you have suggested support for gun bans

No I haven't. I think every sane law-abiding adult should be able to buy a gun. (at least in the US)

[mattjw916 2]

Lawyers don't have anything to do with it really. And if you keep pumping rounds into someone who is clearly incapacitated there's a not insignificant chance you could be sitting in front of a grand jury at some point.

There's a big difference between the Mozambique Drill and popping off a "f%$k you" round.

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[kelpdiver 2]

wmw999

Quote

"From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents."

120 < 3,533

Every year more than 500 kids die in bike accidents.
http://ymiclassroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GetInGear.pdf

120 < 500

So statistically a kid is more likely to die by drowning or by riding a bike than by gun shot.

And I'd say that depends on how many kids are in each set:

kids+guns

kids+bikes

kids+water (according to the CDC 20% are children)

After all, few would say that skydiving is more dangerous BASE jumping, but I believe worldwide deaths from skydiving exceed those from BASE jumping.

That said, this incident is incredibly sad.

Wendy P.

What you're talking about is exposure. But it sounds a bit squirrelly to try to kill his point.

40% (give or take?) of households have guns. I believe that's higher than the portion with swimming pools, so in terms of water, the guns have greater exposure with much lower negative results.

In my (and your's) generation, bikes were, I believe, more prevalent than 40%, but with this current generation restricted to the home and play dates, maybe not. But in any event, 500 is more than 2.5x 120, so even it it were 100% the fatality rate for bikes, even considering exposure, is higher than guns.

But this incident is a complete outlier - someone tries to do something that should have been fun, and it goes horribly wrong. The recipient got startled into a fight or flight reaction, not expecting a friend to be inside the home.

If a kid swapped lunches without telling another and in the process gave a cookie with nuts in it to an allergic kid, that could end with a fatality as well. But what do you conclude from it? You make policy on the common situations, not the outliers.

[Kennedy 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

You are taught to aim center mass and stop only when the threat is stopped

Which is the lawyer version of: Keep pulling the trigger until you are very sure he won't be getting up.

Actually it's the good advice version of: if you have to shoot, shoot until he doesn't get up. (very different from from shoot until he won't ever get up again)

The lawyer version will cost you.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[OHCHUTE 0]

billvon

>No, but you have suggested support for gun bans

No I haven't. I think every sane law-abiding adult should be able to buy a gun. (at least in the US)

>I think every sane law-abiding adult should be able to buy a gun.

Except for scary AR15, right BV?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

No I haven't. I think every sane law-abiding adult should be able to buy a gun. (at least in the US)

You have proposed that lawful sane citizens have to jump through hoops to be able to exercise a right.... While raging against any type of hoop to exercise any of the other rights in the Constitution.

You want to expose citizens to tests and exams to be able to own a gun. But for example you are against showing an ID to vote.

"Shall not be infringed" is not a difficult concept, yet you want to infringe on it.

Further, you have expressed support for bans. Such as a ban in or near school zones. You have expressed support for California's gun laws which contain bans.

You are for a ban UNLESS a citizen jumps through a bunch of hoops you agree with. That is a ban.

[Stumpy 256]

DaVinci

That is a ban.

Nope. I know the English language is tricky, but it's not THAT tricky.
"Banned from driving" is not the same as "Allowed to drive with a license."

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[DaVinci 0]

Stumpy

***That is a ban.

Nope. I know the English language is tricky, but it's not THAT tricky.
"Banned from driving" is not the same as "Allowed to drive with a license."

I realize that English is tricky... Thanks for trying to figure it out.

Maybe you can explain how "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" allows for not allowing a person to own something.

[mattjw916 2]

that's just an example of false equivalence

a more accurate comparison would be if citizens were required to pass a test and obtain a license to travel between states

operating an automobile is not a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution, traveling on the other hand is

NSCR-2376, SCR-15080

[Stumpy 256]

Please explain how what I said would prevent you from owning anything.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Stumpy 256]

Sorry bad example - wasn't trying to go down the cars vs guns route in this case, Was just explaining that "Ban" doesn't mean what the poster thinks it does.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 2,463]

>You have proposed that lawful sane citizens have to jump through hoops to be able to exercise a right.

Yes. Just like you need to "jump through hoops" to have a parade (i.e. get a permit) even though the right to peacefully assemble is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Just like you need to "jump through hoops" (i.e. file paperwork - building permits, tax exempt status, occupancy requirements) to open a church even though government is prohibited from making laws concerning religion.

Just like you have to "jump through hoops" to fly (i.e. searches at airports) even though the Fourth Amemdment prevents unreasonable searches.

No right is unrestrictied. The Supreme Court has ruled on this several times, and they seem to understand it even if gun nuts don't.

>"Shall not be infringed" is not a difficult concept, yet you want to infringe on it.

You seem to have a very selective sense of outrage. Unless the right has the word "gun" in it, you overlook it.

[DaVinci 0]

Stumpy

Please explain how what I said would prevent you from owning anything.

'"Banned from driving" is not the same as "Allowed to drive with a license."'

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... Still waiting on you to educate me on that bit of English.

I guess you would then support licensing before a person was allowed to vote? Passing a test before a person was allowed free speech? Proving they are able to 'earn' the right to a trial by Jury?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You seem to have a very selective sense of outrage. Unless the right has the word "gun" in it, you overlook it.

You must be blind. I didn't support stop and frisk, so your claim just fell flat on your face. You seem to have blinders when it comes to this subject.

***>You have proposed that lawful sane citizens have to jump through hoops to be able to exercise a right.

Yes/quote]

Then I guess you would support proving you are a citizen before being allowed to vote?

I guess you would approve of passing a test before you can exercise the right to free speech?

I guess you would support paying a fee to be able to be secure from illegal searches?

[champu 1]

Stumpy

***That is a ban.

Nope. I know the English language is tricky, but it's not THAT tricky.
"Banned from driving" is not the same as "Allowed to drive with a license."

English isn't, but laws can be.

As I've said before... It is not illegal to BASE jump in US national parks, you just have to get a permit.

And there are also exceptions in most all of the laws that California passes against particular types of weapons. If you work in law enforcement or the movie industry you can have pretty much whatever you want. See, totally not bans!

Also, the California state assembly just passed SB-374 today. It extends the definition of assault weapons to directly go after people who have modified their weapons to be compliant with California's previous assault weapon ban. (People who have voluntarily crippled their rifles so they can be compliant to laws are the last people you want having weapons.) But it's totally not a ban, it's a... okay yeah it's a ban... but it doesn't happen until the end of the year! Does that still count?

Also: concealed carry in Los Angeles County? totally not banned

[Stumpy 256]

DaVinci

***Please explain how what I said would prevent you from owning anything.

'"Banned from driving" is not the same as "Allowed to drive with a license."'

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... Still waiting on you to educate me on that bit of English.

I guess you would then support licensing before a person was allowed to vote? Passing a test before a person was allowed free speech? Proving they are able to 'earn' the right to a trial by Jury?

As you well know, the 2nd amendment is heavily open to interpretation. Even now you can't bear any arms you like, at any time you like. There are no absolutes. My only point here was that you don't know what the word "Ban" actually means. If you can't understand that, any of your arguments in this thread are pretty much meaningless, and go along with the crazy NRA sheep viewpoint that any measure anyone tries to implement regardless of merit, to improve the situation in the US is a BAN.

Nice attempt at a dodge though.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[kelpdiver 2]

Stumpy

Nope. I know the English language is tricky, but it's not THAT tricky.
"Banned from driving" is not the same as "Allowed to drive with a license."

It wasn't that long ago that poll taxes and literacy tests (aka, your license) were used to deny blacks the ability to vote.

Probably not the solution to be espousing, particularly given the racist history of gun control.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

As you well know, the 2nd amendment is heavily open to interpretation

And the US Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean:

Miller 1939. Weapons 'suitable for use in a militia are protected'

Heller 2008. Citizens are allowed to own firearms and do not have to be in a militia. They are allowed to use them for 'lawful purposes to INCLUDE self defense in the home". They also found that is is an INDIVIDUAL right.

McDonald 2010. It is incorporated to the States.

Quote

Even now you can't bear any arms you like, at any time you like.

Also covered in Heller. Provisions against felons and the mentally ill. And provisions against carrying in sensitive places. Ironically one fo those places you can't carry is a school... How did that work out here?

Quote

My only point here was that you don't know what the word "Ban" actually means.

Bullshit, that was your strawman. The problem is you seem to think that if I am allowed in ANYWAY whatsoever then it is not a ban. But that is just crap. It was not that long ago that 'poll taxes' were considered legal to vote. It was not that long ago that tests were required prior to voting. Yet the Federal Govt saw those as bans against a group of people... No, the WORD ban was never used - But the actions made it clear that is what was happening.

You latched onto the word, the only thing you could defend against, and ignored that it is in reality a ban.

And like I said before, weapons are BANNED from schools... How did that work out in this case?

Quote

If you can't understand that, any of your arguments in this thread are pretty much meaningless, and go along with the crazy NRA sheep viewpoint that any measure anyone tries to implement regardless of merit, to improve the situation in the US is a BAN.

And when out classed.... you go for personal attacks. Typical.

And it is your OPINION that the proposals will "improve the situation in the US".... You have nothing to back that up. If these actions worked, then CA would not contribute 66% of all gun shot fatalities in the US.

Typically, you hold a belief and no amount of data will shake you from that belief. You ignore all the data and instead latch onto emotion... As seem by your taking pot shots at me when your argument is proven to be false.

Still waiting on you to educate me on what "Shall not be infringed" means.

And I guess you would support poll taxes coming back... After all you could still vote.

[Stumpy 256]

DaVinci

And I guess you would support poll taxes coming back... After all you could still vote.

Nope. I can't vote anyway. I have a lot of investment and work in a business HQ'd in GA, and visit more often than I would like, but don't have citizenship/residency.
Didn't know that about the poll taxes and licensing - so I concede your point. I'll do some reading on that one.

However - this is not the same thing.

Quote

The problem is you seem to think that if I am allowed in ANYWAY whatsoever then it is not a ban. But that is just crap.

Actually, no its not. if you are allowed - then it's not a ban. Let me reiterate, if I ask you "Are you able to buy a gun and you answer "Yes" then its not a ban. I can buy a gun where I live here (and have) - I had to jump through some hoops to do so, so it is not banned, just "well regulated".
If the answer is "no" as in your example above then yes I concede it is a ban.

Quote

And it is your OPINION that the proposals will "improve the situation in the US"

Mine - and 75% of the US population. The small band of pro gun lobbyists however tend to get their way.

Quote

when your argument is proven to be false.

you know you haven't even come close right?

Quote

Still waiting on you to educate me on what "Shall not be infringed" means.

I covered this - it's NOT an absolute, whether you like it or not. There are conditions. It does not mean, anyone can have anything, anywhere, anytime.

Quote

you go for personal attacks.

My apologies - I blame some very long days. Its sad that for the time being DZ.com comprises my time off! I'll buy you a beer sometime if I ever leave the office.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[kelpdiver 2]

Stumpy

Quote

Still waiting on you to educate me on what "Shall not be infringed" means.

I covered this - it's NOT an absolute, whether you like it or not. There are conditions. It does not mean, anyone can have anything, anywhere, anytime.

Nothing is absolute. And yet, we don't tolerate too many infringements on free speech or exercise of religion. We're a bit loose on the concept with freedom of assembly these days.

So if you want to put an infringement on access to firearms, it has to be for good cause. Saying "it might stop some violence" doesn't meet that bar. So DC can't ban handguns anymore and Chicago can't put up requirements so ludicrous that no one can meet it. Likewise, a requirement to demonstrate proficiency to a sheriff is a clear barrier to entry, as would be fees in the hundreds of dollars. Clear intent here to disarm the poor and those in rural areas. Yes, you can often poll high support for these sorts of proposals. And not very long ago, 75% opposed gay marriage rights (and still just around 50%).

Assault weapon bans fail any sniff test when you see how rarely they are using in violence. Magazine capacity limits only hurt the people - if you doubt that, then why are LEOs exempted? And why are they exempted from any proposed smart gun requirements? Because they don't fucking work.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Mine - and 75% of the US population. The small band of pro gun lobbyists however tend to get their way.

this is just plain false

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[OHCHUTE 0]

All I know is that the citizen without the guns will rely on those with the guns for their protection. So if you are anti gun, don't come to me to save your ass when the time comes. You are on your own. As Obama's admin is now giving guns to Syrians to defend themselves against a corrupt government.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Many of those rebels are Al Qaeda.